On January 24, 2025, the Iowa Supreme Court issued a significant ruling in MIMG CLXXII Retreat on 6th, LLC v. Mackenzie Miller, a case that has far-reaching implications for landlord-tenant law and federal preemption doctrines. The ruling clarified the interpretation of the CARES Act’s 30-day pre-eviction notice requirement, ultimately reversing the lower courts’ decisions and reaffirming the primacy of state landlord-tenant laws where federal law does not explicitly preempt them. This decision could have a substantial impact on how courts across the country approach similar cases, particularly in determining the scope of federal intervention in state property law.
Background of the Case
The dispute in MIMG v. Miller arose when The Retreat, an apartment complex in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, sought to evict Mackenzie Miller for nonpayment of rent. The Retreat followed Iowa law, which mandates a three-day notice for nonpayment evictions. However, the lower courts ruled that because The Retreat had a federally backed mortgage, it was subject to the CARES Act’s 30-day notice requirement for evictions in covered dwellings. The Iowa Supreme Court ultimately reversed this decision, finding that the 30-day requirement applied only during the 120-day COVID-19 eviction moratorium and did not establish a permanent federal rule.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue in MIMG v. Miller was whether the CARES Act imposed a permanent 30-day notice requirement on landlords of covered dwellings or whether the provision was limited to the 120-day emergency period during the pandemic. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the law must be read in the context of the entire CARES Act, which was temporary legislation intended to provide emergency relief rather than permanently alter state eviction procedures.
The Court reasoned that:
- The CARES Act’s language did not explicitly indicate that the 30-day notice requirement was intended to outlive the 120-day moratorium.
- Reading the provision in isolation would create an illogical legal landscape, requiring 30-day notices even in cases involving criminal activity or dangerous tenants.
- A broad interpretation of the federal law would unnecessarily intrude into a domain traditionally governed by state law, violating principles of federalism.
Impact on State and Federal Courts
The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision is likely to influence other state courts facing similar disputes, particularly those that have upheld the 30-day notice requirement as an ongoing federal mandate. This ruling challenges interpretations made by courts in states like Colorado, Ohio, and Washington, where judges have taken a broader view of the CARES Act’s reach.
At the federal level, this case may serve as a precedent for courts reviewing federal statutes that seemingly impose permanent changes on state laws. The ruling underscores the principle that temporary federal measures should not be presumed to override state laws unless Congress explicitly states otherwise. This approach aligns with U.S. Supreme Court rulings that emphasize reading federal statutes in their full context and respecting traditional state powers unless Congress clearly intends to preempt them.
Federalism and the Limits of Congressional Authority
MIMG v. Miller also reinforces the principle that Congress must use clear and explicit language if it intends to permanently preempt state law. The ruling echoes the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alabama Ass’n of Realtors v. Department of Health & Human Services, which struck down the CDC’s eviction moratorium on the grounds that it exceeded the agency’s statutory authority. Both cases highlight the tension between emergency federal actions and long-term state sovereignty.
The decision also raises questions about how courts should interpret ambiguities in federal law. If state courts adopt Iowa’s reasoning, it may signal a broader judicial movement toward limiting the reach of ambiguous federal regulations over state matters. This could affect a range of legal areas beyond landlord-tenant law, including environmental regulations, labor laws, and consumer protection statutes.
Potential Legislative Responses
The ruling in MIMG v. Miller could prompt congressional action to clarify whether the 30-day notice provision should be a permanent requirement for federally backed properties or whether the 30-day notice provision should be repealed to resolve the issue. Lawmakers who favor stronger tenant protections may seek to codify a nationwide notice standard, while those advocating for state autonomy may push to reaffirm states’ authority over eviction laws.
Additionally, housing advocacy groups may challenge the ruling through further litigation in federal court or lobbying efforts, arguing that tenants in covered dwellings deserve additional protections beyond what state laws provide. Conversely, landlord associations may cite this ruling as a basis to challenge similar preemption arguments in other states, potentially leading to a split among state courts that could eventually require U.S. Supreme Court intervention.
Eviction Laws and Federalism
The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in MIMG v. Miller is a pivotal ruling that reasserts the role of state law in eviction proceedings and limits the scope of federal preemption in landlord-tenant disputes. By ruling that the CARES Act’s 30-day notice requirement was tied to the temporary COVID-19 moratorium, the court preserved state control over eviction laws and reinforced the need for clear congressional intent when overriding state regulations.
This ruling is likely to shape future legal battles over federalism and the CARES Act itself, influencing courts in other states and potentially prompting legislative or judicial responses at the federal level. As housing policy continues to evolve, MIMG v. Millerstands as a critical case in defining the balance between federal emergency measures and long-standing state authority in property law.
Property Management Law Solutions, PLLC is a Florida law firm that specializes in landlord-tenant law and is a landlord-only law firm. We provide statewide services including evictions, consultation plans, education and training, membership plans, lease agreement plans and more. If you are a landlord or property manager, contact us today or subscribe to one of our online membership plans.